Jurisdiction of U.S. District Courts Over Suits Relating to Orders of State Administrative Boards: Hearings ... on S. 752 ... Feb. 27- Mar.1, 1934
1934 - 319 pages
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
action administrative amendment American appeal apply Association authority believe bill body CHAIRMAN citizens claim commission commission's committee conclusion CONDON confiscation Congress Constitution corporation counsel course decision delay determination district courts effect enforcement enjoin EVERETT evidence existing expense fact fair Federal courts final findings further gentlemen give given Government granted ground Harvard Law Review hearing injunction interest involved issue Johnson judges judgment judicial Judicial Code Judiciary jurisdiction Justice legislation letter litigation lower matter Michigan objection operation opinion passed pending practice present procedure proceedings proposed protection Public Service Commission public utility question Railroad reason record referred regulation remedy representing respect restrain rule section 266 Senator statement statute stay submitted suit Supreme Court taken Telephone testimony tion trial tribunal United States Supreme WEST York
Page 231 - Act to regulate commerce," and the various Acts amendatory thereof, and in all judicial proceedings brought to enjoin, set aside, annul or suspend, in whole or in part, any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Page 224 - In countries where the common law prevails, it has been customary from time immemorial for the legislature to declare what shall be a reasonable compensation under such circumstances, or, perhaps more properly speaking, to fix a maximum beyond which any charge made would be unreasonable.
Page 91 - In all such cases, if the owner claims confiscation of his property will result, the State must provide a fair opportunity for submitting that issue to a judicial tribunal for determination upon its own independent judgment as to both law and facts; otherwise the order is void because in conflict with the due process clause, Fourteenth Amendment.
Page 302 - The Constitution unavoidably deals in general language. It did not suit the purposes of the people, in framing this great charter of our liberties, to provide for minute specifications of its powers, or to declare the means by which those powers should be carried into execution. It was foreseen that this would be a perilous and difficult, if not an impracticable task. The instrument was not intended to provide merely for the exigencies of a few years, but was to endure through a long lapse of ages,...
Page 277 - Its course cannot always be tranquil. It is exposed to storms and tempests, and its framers must be unwise statesmen, indeed, if they have not provided it, as far as its nature will permit, with the means of self-preservation from the perils it may be destined to encounter. No government ought to be so defective in its organization as not to contain within itself the means of securing the execution of its own laws against other dangers than those which occur every day.
Page 304 - The mere necessity of uniformity in the interpretation of the national laws, decides the question. Thirteen independent courts of final jurisdiction over the same causes, arising upon the same laws, is a hydra in government, from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed.
Page 224 - Undoubtedly, in mere private contracts, relating to matters in which the public has no interest, what is reasonable must be ascertained judicially. But this is because the legislature has no control over such a contract. So, too, in matters which do affect the public interest, and as to which legislative control may be exercised, if there are no statutory regulations upon the subject, the courts must determine what is reasonable. The controlling fact is the power to regulate at all. If that exists,...
Page 72 - the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.
Page 70 - In 1911 the committee on jurisprudence and law reform of the American Bar Association, of which Mr.
Page 237 - States, or to a circuit or district judge, and shafl be heard and determined by three judges, of whom at least one shall be a justice of the Supreme Court or a circuit judge, and the other two may be either circuit or district judges, and unless a majority of said three judges shall concur in granting such application.